A MODIFICATION

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 244, 15 November 1929, Page 6

A MODIFICATION

Ti will be noled that' the T/niied States, as represented by Presidenfc Idoover, iias modified its elaim for wliafc ifc styles the freedom of the seas. Oi'iginally ihe elaim was that if two or more nations were at war "neutrals" shonld he granted the vmrestrieted right to sopply one or all of tliem with eontraband of war, t his including Aveapons and munitions. Now, says Presidenfc Hoover, Ihe T'nited Htates will be safcisfied if (he nnreslrieled right to supply foodstuffs to eombatant. nalions is coneeded. This, of eourse, wliile a condemnation of the previous elaim, and an improvemenfc npon ifc, opens up iunmense I difficulties. Meanwhile, what is the United Slates doing in relation to what we suppose it would style eontraband of peaee? It is ehasing on the high seas, and sometimes sinkiiag, tlle yesseis of other nalions trying to convev liquor to the United States. Nobodv iB inclined to dispute the right of the United States so to aefc. It has what it eoneeiyes to be its owli rights and its own safefcy to conserve. Yet that ifc should so act.on the high seas in regard to eonfcrabatid alcohol is a eurious comment npon its elaim that during warfare ifc should have the undisputed right to supplv to any nation or nations engaged in war (he means to enable them, or anv of them, to wage war by its help. The difficulties arising out of the now modified elaim foi* the right of neutrals to render aid to eombatant nations have been promptly set out onbehalf of these veral great Powers of Europe claiming the right to blockade on sea and land. Fats of all hinds are foodstuffs, yet can be, and of course are, regularly used in the maflufacture of explosives. Even wheafc is used to manufacfcure industrial alcohol, an important factor in the making of modern munitions of war. 'Also, as pointed out by our London namesake, it is

proposed only to legalise supplies " carried' by sea, supplies carried overland not being protected. In . the case of two nations at war, one depending largely on seaborne supplies and the other on land carriage, obviously the former is assisted as against tbe latter. But there are more important points to consider. In the light of President Hoover's speecb, even with its modification of former claims, we are almost compelled to regard the attitude of tlie United Rtates as slieer hyprocisv. Wliile professing to be very anxious to abolish war, it is energetically worlcing for the right to make pfofit out of the next war, the war whieh the United States evidently assumes is coming — coming to put money into its poekets. This sordid desire to make money out of world misfortunes, quite unahcasliedlv expressed, is not in aceord with the loudly-proclaiined hope foi* a continuanee of peaee. President Hoover says that in times of peaee there is absolute freedom of the seas for trade. If that is so, whv is he so anxious to bring about that condition under which the traders of the United States would not only make profits out of war, but, by (he nature of the case, profits much more enormous than are possihle during peace-time trading? It may ^ he noted witli intevest that there* is a shred.of honesty in a long rhetorical appeal leading up to the conclusion that the United Statqs ought to be permitted the unrestrloted right to grow increasinglv wealthy as a re sult of warfare between other nations, for he deelares, We must franklv'aecept the fact that we and all ihe nations of the world will be involved for all future time in small or great controversies arising out of multiple causes.' This declaiation follows a reeital of many causes— "spectres liaunting the world," as he "puts it— which may- at any time "touch the spt'ings of fear and illWlll." .. .

Putting the ease bluntly, ne aamits that foi* all time the danger of war will have to be faced, and with this in his mind he demnnds for Ihe United States that_ all other Powers shall eoneede to it the right, to make big and sordid profits out of whatever wars take plaee. As for tbe views of the United States as to the possibility of preserving peaee, it was diffieult for hina to be explanatory and honest. Having admitted that Ihe nalions of Eurolie have by a solemn eovenant agreed l.o a scheme of general arbitration, under whieh if differences arise and anv one of those nations refuges to abi'de hy the verdict of the others they shall. eombine to eompel submission, and having further admit'ted that this is a step in the direction of prevbntifig war, hfe liad to confess that tbe United States refused to join or even to share in the proceedings of tbe League of Nations. As to this, he says^ "We prefer to go our own rbad." In other words, it is a case of the United States standmg for "Every - body do as I like;" buttressed by the' cpntentipn that in the even.t oi

war the United States will he given earfce blanche to make all the profits it can out of assisting the eombatants to wage war hy supplying them with eommodities.